FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22652/07
Anton Alekseyevich BAKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 May 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Julia Laffranque,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 April 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Anton Alekseyevich Bakov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Region. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Yablonskiy, a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant, a former member of the Russian Parliament, complained, in particular, under Article 10 of the Convention that he had been held civilly liable for statements made about another State official at a press conference.
The applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s lawyer, who was invited to submit observations in reply. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 11 February 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant’s lawyer was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 10 January 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The lawyer’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. No response has been received to date.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy